chaprola_compile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several non-obvious behavioral traits: no PROGRAM keyword, no commas, MOVE+PRINT 0 buffer model, SEEK for primary records, and parameter requirements for field addressing. This goes well beyond the schema, but it omits side effects like file overwriting or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then lists vital syntax rules. Although it could be formatted with bullets for better scannability, every sentence contributes directly to correct usage, with no extraneous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex compile tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, language syntax, and parameter dependencies, making it actionable. It falls short on return values and error behavior, but the reference to the cookbook and detailed syntax rules provide substantial context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that LET supports only one operation and that P.field/S.field addressing requires primary_format/secondary_format, clarifying the role of those optional parameters. It also imposes syntax constraints on the source parameter, enhancing its semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Compile Chaprola source (.CS) to bytecode (.PR).' This specific phrasing distinguishes the tool from siblings like chaprola_run or chaprola_import, and the file extensions add precision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit prerequisite ('READ chaprola://cookbook BEFORE writing source') and enumerates key syntax rules, providing actionable context for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.